hist140fandomcom-20200215-history
Fall2010
Foreign Policy in Latin America Thesis: Throughout its history Latin America has had foreign policies imposed on it that have consistently sought to keep Latin American countries in a subservient position to allow the exploitation of natural resources and cheap labor. In other words, from colonization by Europe to the present, the countries in Latin America have been held back for the benefit of the colonizers. Other countries use Latin America's cheap labor and extensive land resources without aiding developement. The United States and Spain have some of the best economic, health and labor programs, while Latin America is struggling against poverty, disease, civil rights, land reform and labor. Outline thoughts: We could go through Latin America’s history and show how foreign policy has repeatedly kept people in Latin America from becoming self sufficient. We need to provide both sides of the story- some positives just off the top of my head: Russian aid to Cuba, Missionaries, and the School of the Americas (debatable). The Negatives won’t be hard to find. 1. Colonial Rule- colonies could only trade with their respective mother country, Encomienda, Potosi, Peninsulares, Creoles, haciendas, corruption (I obey but I do not comply). *Spanish Occupation: Beginning with conquests such as those of Hernan Cortes and Francisco Pizarro, the Spanish Occupation of Latin America eventually evolved into the use of encomiendas. The conquests of both Cortes and Pizarro proved to be brutal, demanding gold from the indigenous Aztecs (Cortes) and Incans (Pizarro). Cortes managed to take the capital of the Aztec Empire, Tenochtitlan, gaining $2.5 million dollars in gold. Pizarro, on the other hand, held the Incan leader Atahualpa hostage, gaining $17.5 million dollars for his release that never happened. Pizarro killed the leader despite getting what he wanted. This brutality did not end with the encomiendas, it actually worsened. A creation of Spain, this idea of extracting labor and tribute was used against the Moors. Those fighting the Moors received rewards and then traveled to the New World and implemented this idea there against the Indians under the Spanish due to conquest. This feudal trusteeship placed the wealth in the hands of few, a common problem still present in Latin America today. When he traveled to the New World, Christopher Colombus was quick to implement this entrustment, but he viewed it as more of an "exchange" than a flat-out extraction. Though the indigenous were still forced to pay tribute and work or else they would suffer the brutality of the Spanish, the Spanish in return would offer baptism, protection from harm, and access to the Catholic Church. These were viewed as "rewards", despite the fact that the indigenous were required to pay and often ended up in debt because of it. All the settlers of Spain sought to reap the wealth of the New World, and so they did using this labor and tribute system. The Spanish would negotiate for these things with the Cacique, or Indian leader. And if the Indian leader refused to help, they were disposed of and replaced by someone more helpful to the Spanish, very similar to what the U.S. tried to do with Hugo Chavez. Though Indian slavery was outlawed in 1544, partially thanks to the Friar Bartoleme de las Casas' exposing maltreatment, it still remained for many years to come. Even if it wasn't called slavery, many Indians were still debt peons working off the debt they acquired for buying tools, seeds, baptisms, and funerals. To do this, much work was done on haciendas, latifundias, and fazendas. Unfortuantely, the more land acquired by the Spanish, the less left to the Indian populations. In conjunction with their requirement to work anothers' land and their inability to pay for seeds and tools to work the little land they had left, the Indians had little hope of escaping the cycle. Because the Indians weren't accumstomed to the Europeans, as the Africans had become, they were subject to all the diseases brought over to the New World. The Friar realized the death rate was quite high, as nearly entire populations were wiped out of many areas such as the Caribbean, and he believed the Indians to be worked to death even before being baptised and converted to Christianity. Despite this, Indians continued to work and die. African slavery soon became the more accepted form of slavery, but no matter who was doing the work, it was all for the good of a people not from the land, only trying to take what they could get their hands on and make money for themselves without regard to the welfare of others. (Meade, 24-32) *Many Latin American Countries have a long history of Political and economic hardship that has shaped their vast culture to this day. They also were pressured to follow the steps of European countries in order to grow. This at first did not seem so bad until it was found that the European countries did not believe that liberty and equality was something for the masses (Meade, 81-82). Suddenly the idea of following the European countries was turned on it's head. This was evidence that although the European countries might relate with the Latin American countries they did not really want them to be sovereign or grow. 2. Neocolonial Period- export led economies caused boom-bust cycles. United Fruit company, railroads that only lead to ports, coffee, very few people made profit and those that did rarely reinvested it back into the economy, social stratification, peonage, Monroe doctrine, Haiti, trusts and monopolies William walker, Russia helps Cuba- but may have used it as a satellite, Bracero Program. *Colombia had the coffee boom. "In Colombia the boom in coffee exports began in the early years of the century and grew from one million bags (60 kilos each) in 1913 to three million bags yearly by the end of the 1920's, making coffee the leading export". Coffee exports boomed from the 1800's onwards. By the 1920's coffee accounted for 70% of the total exports. (MEADE 179-80). At the end of the Colombian coffee boom, and in unison with the banana workers strike, Colombia went into a repression. The development of these crops in Colombia was organized by the United Fruit Company, a United States business. Because of their distance from the actual production, the managers were able to enjoy their riches while the laborers in Colombia worked in horrible conditions getting little pay. On October 7, 1928, the banana workers went on strike to protest their working conditions and pay, and the company retaliated in the banana massacre. This lead to an increased movements by laborers all over Latin America, who fought for better working conditions and better pay. *Peru had the guano boom. "The harvest and export of guano (bird dung used for fertilizer) from islands off the southern coast of Peru offers a story of intense regional economic prosperity, followed by sudden decline... harvesting guano exemplifies the economic and social impact of a spike in demand followed by precipitous decline... In the mid-nineteenth century Europe had entered a heightened agricultural boom, offering an ideal market or processed guano fertilizer, resulting in the transformation of a small local trade into a fabulously lucrative international export commodity for Peru. From 1841 to 1879 guano was Peru's most important export, revenues were in the hundreds of millions of dollars, providing a healthy infusion of capital into the depressed, post-independence economy. Since guano fertilizer was known for boosting the productivity of a range of crops, including turnips, tobacco, grains, and vegetables, and since it was relatively inexpensive, European demand at first appeared to be boundless. Peruvian guano was instrumental in Europe's nineteenth-century agricultural revolution and ensuing population increase. As quickly as it began, however, the trade declined when Chilean nitrates and other forms of fertilizer replaced guano, especially as the latter became increasing scarce and harder to collect and transport. By the mid-1870s the much-celebrated "Age of Guano" was ending, leaving in its wake a devastated economy. By 1876 "Peru defaulted on its foreign debt and the region entered a crisis from which it would not soon emerge" (MEADE 106-7) In Peru's guano boom and subsequent decline due to the introduction of another product also lead to the "bust" in another "boom, bust" cycle. The money wasn't evenly spread out, so only a handful of people had access to the profit. These people didn't use the money to invest in the bettering of the country, but rather used it to bring in outside goods. These foreign goods pushed the local goods out of the market because they weren't able to compete with the cheaper made products. Then in 1860 when guano was replaced by nitrates, the country suffered because it didn't put the money from the industry for education or healthcare, or anything else that would actually help the community. *Brazilian rubber exports provided an enormous amount of wealth beginning in the 1870's but then collapsed after 1910. The time period was first called the "rubber boom" but then was renamed to a "boom gone bust". During the boom period of rubber, it attracted laborers, speculators and merchants from all over the world. Rubber exports consisted of a milky white fluid extracted from the Hevea brasiliensis ''tree which is called latex. Since the discovery of "vulcanization", which is the process of stabilizing raw rubber, the demand for rubber raised, millions of people rushed to the Amazon region to make a fortune. The rubber boom created instant millionaires or "rubber barons". From the rubber boom, many services such as food and entertainment boomed, which brought the benefits to the people of boomtowns at that time. The boom became a bust because people became aware that the trees could grow outside the Amazon region. (MEADE 114-115) Rubber brought in a lot of money to only a few people. By harvesting the sap from rubber trees, Brazil was able to provide the rubber that was demanded by Europe and other industrial countries. People started migrating to Brazil to work tapping these trees with the aspirations of getting rich. However in this situation, the only people getting rich were the people in control. Once scientists discovered that rubber trees could be grown outside of Brazil, the competition started. Because the trees grown outside of Brazil were in plantations, they could get more rubber, and Brazil couldn't compete with it. The spoils of the short-lived rubber boom were very poorly applied and distributed. The vast wealth was funneled into a very small group of elites of Brazilian society and industry. Instead of social and industrial investment, the rubber revenues were spent on lavish projects such as opera houses, which serve next to no social or economic benefit relative to the amount of money these projects cost. This period in history serves as a classic economic and political lesson, showing that a boom can unexpectedly turn into a bust, and that one should plan accordingly. After the rubber boom, Brazil had little to show for its successes. Instead of applying the rubber money to the support of economic and social prosperity, the Brazilian elite class squandered the money on foolish cultural projects, instead of the much needed programs to benefit the entire nation and its future. *Even though the booms did bring some economic growth to these countries, it did not last long. They concentrated on making one product and making a huge profit out of it, which they did but as soon as other nations saw how successful they were they wanted to produce it too. Their wealth was short lived and then they had to come up with a new product to produce so that their economy could survive. Latin America has a lot of natural resources that could make them rich but they just did not know how to make it prosperous and make it last. That's why they needed outside help. They have the resources to be rich but not the means to keep it going. Outside forces saw this and attracted them to these nations. So they could take advantage of them to make themselves richer, take Argentina for example and the Anglo-Argentine Allience. These booms also gained the interest of the United States. They were one of their top consumer. After all the booms, these latin american countries started making more business with the United States, especially Mexico.The Unites States took this opportunity and fough for some of Mexico's land. *The Bracero Program (full name: "Bracero Temporary Worker Program") was an effort by the U.S. to get workers from Latin America. The program began with an agreement between President Roosevelt and Manuel Avila Camacho. The agreement was to recruit over 300,000 Mexicans to be agricultural workers because of a labor shortage in the United States. This labor shortage was due to worker vacancy because of military conscription and the influx of highly skilled workers needed for factories. They brought in the workers to do the jobs at a lower cost, as not to displace the rightful owners of the job. By the time the program ended, approximately 4.6 million Mexicans had participated. (SEE MEADE CHAPTER 10) The Bracero Program helped the US to get through the wars (World War II and Korean War) by preserving the US food supplies. However, the program raised controversies because the peak of this program was in the 50s, while this program was supposed to help the US in WWII only, which questioned the intentions of the US government towards the cheap laborers from neighboring Mexico. The practice of migrant labor exploitation, inspired by the Bracero Program, is still going on today. 3. Washington consensus or Neoliberalism- Unrivaled U.S. power after Soviet Union collapse, IMF, School of the Americas, NAFTA, Venezuela-Chavez, Iraq war, cold war, Cuba, Brazil Vs. Venezuela, U.S. Aid and Iranian arms deal that financed uprising, coups, oil, subsidized corn, immigration. Ban on Cuban trading *As the phase of revolution ended in Latin America, there was a major change in the balance of power. The reigning power of dictators began to decrease as the countries of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and Peru began to subside to the left sided type of government. Unlike other countries in Latin America, Mexico is the closest and hold of dificult position as the economy still approaches an economic depression. Mexico is stable politically but fails to reform their government like many other Latin American countries. *Once the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of the cold war the United States became a single superpower with unrivaled influence. The U.S. used it influence to persuade Latin American countries to adopt its own views on trade and globalization called Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism also called the Washington consensus is an economic approach that stresses the efficiency of private companies. The most notable example of neoliberalism in Latin America is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA reduced tariffs between Mexico and the U.S. to allow “Free Trade” between the two countries. Eduardo Silva offers an explanation of why some Latin American countries went along with neoliberal movements, “Neoliberals expected that the economic power of international and national business sectors would then take over. Macroeconomic stability, investment, and rapid sustained economic growth would boost employment and real incomes. These improvements would generate broader societal support for contemporary market society, or at least quiescence, making it easier to isolate and control protestors” (Silva, 45). What the neoliberals failed to see was that by entering into the NAFTA they opened the flood gates to highly subsidized U.S. goods. Highly subsidized corn grown in the United States was exported to Mexico where it was cheaper and higher quality than the domestic corn in Mexico. As a result Mexican farmers were unable to compete with the foreign corn, forcing many farmers to go to urban centers in search of work. Instead of increasing economic growth and real income NAFTA destroyed the agribusiness in Mexico while the U.S. profited from a new unregulated market for its goods. 4. Future of Latin America- pink tide, resistance to free trade agreements, agricultural reform, Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), Free Trade Area of the Americas ( FTAA). *Although most of Latin America’s history is filled with domestic and foreign oppression there are several positive movements occurring in Latin America today. In 1988 Eduardo Galeano wrote a speech to persuade the public to vote against extending the current president’s term another eight years. Galeano writes, “We say no to fear. No to the fear of speaking, of doing, of being. Visible colonialism forbids us to speak, to do, to be. Invisible colonialism, more efficient, convinces us that one cannot speak, cannot do, cannot be” (H., and Zolov, 316) . It is clear in Galeano’s speech that he realizes that while Latin American countries are no longer colonies of foreign countries they are still under their control. By saying no to Augusto Pinochet and his free trade policies Galeano was trying to convince the public to move away from oppressive foreign policy. The proposition was defeated which opened presidential elections for the first time in 15 years. The movement towards left leaning governments in Latin American is known as the pink tide. One of the most influential leaders in Latin America right now in Hugo Chavez who is the president of Venezuela. Chavez has proposed an alternative to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) called the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). *The Pink Tide is a term given to the new reform in goverment within the Latin American countries that has leftist polical leaders. It has been in relative boom within the media that has a particular aim towards the Latin American countries that have a newly flourishing Leftist political standpoint. The idea of "pink tide" stems from the term "red tide" (a term often used in biology) yet is related to the 'red' that has long been connected with communism yet is replaced by the lighter tone of "pink" to indicate the sociological, and neoliberal composition hue that is growing within these countries. Author Katherine Isbester supports the Pink Tide stance in Latin America. "The success of the Pink Tide governments in Latin America highlights a conundrum for politics in the region: neoliberal democratization raised the expectations of the populace but did not create the mechanisms to fulfill those expectations. The weak state lacks autonomy from the elite class but the elite no longer control the vote. Voters are now using their most powerful tool - their sheer numbers - and electing into power those who promise to make the system work for them. The agendas of Pink Tide governments intend to improve social justice. Yet most Pink Tide countries have compromised with the neoliberal structuring of their political economy and the insertion of their nations into globalization"(Isbester, 65). With the pink tide, and the rise of socialism in Latin America, the United States have voiced their concerns with these countries, and limited their worldwide exchange. References: H., Robert, and Eric Zolov. ''Latin America and the United States: a documentary history. Oxford University Press, USA, 2000. Print. Meade, Teresa A. A History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to the Present. Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print. Silva, Eduardo. Challenging Neoliberalism in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Quintana, Carlos. Development Problems in Latin America. Austin, TX: University of Austin Texas, 1970. Isbester, Katherine. Paradox of Democracy in Latin America. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1962: 1. Women movements of Latin American history ( Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, Soldaderas, Bertha Lutz with women suffrage, Federation of Cuban Women, Frida Kahlo and women in the arts) 2.The four main Political Leaders of Latin American history (Simon Bolivar, Jose marti, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez) 3. Slavery in Latin America 4. The effects of Neocolonialism and Colonialism 5. The effects and factors of the "booms" (Guano, Sugar, Coffee, Rubber)